Dear Sujoyroy,
In the instant thread, we have been discussing a serious issue related to "legal advice for a mishap at the site" raised by one of the CiteHR members. Suddenly, you have initiated a new issue of mother-child relationship, which is completely unconnected with the ongoing thread. The senior members of this forum have often advised members to initiate a new thread on new subjects. In that case, the continuity of the ongoing subject remains unbroken, and members' option for contributing their views or opinions remains open. You will appreciate that if one thread contains different issues, it creates more confusion than the solution to the problem that the queriest looks for.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
465In the instant thread, we have been discussing a serious issue related to "legal advice for a mishap at the site" raised by one of the CiteHR members. Suddenly, you have initiated a new issue of mother-child relationship, which is completely unconnected with the ongoing thread. The senior members of this forum have often advised members to initiate a new thread on new subjects. In that case, the continuity of the ongoing subject remains unbroken, and members' option for contributing their views or opinions remains open. You will appreciate that if one thread contains different issues, it creates more confusion than the solution to the problem that the queriest looks for.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Respected seniors,
As advised, I have filed a case against management in the labour court of Delhi. Today, I accompanied my advocate for filing the case in the above-mentioned labour court, but they have refused to even accept my papers by informing me that this case cannot be filed in the labour court of Delhi because my gross salary was more than ₹18,000/-. They further asked me to file a civil case in the matter because your case is not under the ID Act. Moreover, they advised me to approach the labour court Faridabad if they accept the case. It is very interesting to note that, in one way, they are claiming that this case cannot be admitted because my salary is more than ₹18,000/-. On the other hand, they are asking me to approach the labour court Faridabad. I am quite confused. I would like to add that my appointment letter was issued to me from Delhi, but my working construction site was at Faridabad where this mishap happened. My gross salary on the last day of working was ₹50,000 only per month. As per clause no. 7 of the appointment letter, ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN YOURSELF AND THE COMPANY CONCERNING OR RELATING TO OR ARISING OUT OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF DELHI AND BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN DELHI ONLY.
Please help me with professional advice because I am not getting the right direction to come out of this mess.
Thanks and regards,
Vinit Soni
8860410213
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As advised, I have filed a case against management in the labour court of Delhi. Today, I accompanied my advocate for filing the case in the above-mentioned labour court, but they have refused to even accept my papers by informing me that this case cannot be filed in the labour court of Delhi because my gross salary was more than ₹18,000/-. They further asked me to file a civil case in the matter because your case is not under the ID Act. Moreover, they advised me to approach the labour court Faridabad if they accept the case. It is very interesting to note that, in one way, they are claiming that this case cannot be admitted because my salary is more than ₹18,000/-. On the other hand, they are asking me to approach the labour court Faridabad. I am quite confused. I would like to add that my appointment letter was issued to me from Delhi, but my working construction site was at Faridabad where this mishap happened. My gross salary on the last day of working was ₹50,000 only per month. As per clause no. 7 of the appointment letter, ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN YOURSELF AND THE COMPANY CONCERNING OR RELATING TO OR ARISING OUT OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF DELHI AND BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN DELHI ONLY.
Please help me with professional advice because I am not getting the right direction to come out of this mess.
Thanks and regards,
Vinit Soni
8860410213
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I posted the sane as above on 14th April 2014. Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sirs,
The officer of the Construction Company who started this thread for suggestions from seniors, as per the facts furnished by him, is neither a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, nor an "employee" under the provisions of The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. Section 58 of The Building & Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, entitles the "building workers" for compensation under the said Act. But the Officer, in my opinion, is not a "building worker" as defined under The Building & Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Sections 44 & 45 of this Act lay down specifically the responsibilities of the employers under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, but the same applies only to "building worker" as defined under section 2(e) of the said Act.
In addition, in my opinion, as pointed out in the above remarks, the construction site is located in Faridabad. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Delhi Labour Court is doubtful since the building construction site located in Faridabad is required to comply with the rules or Acts as applicable in Faridabad/Haryana. In my opinion, any paragraph of agreement between employer and employee regarding the jurisdiction of any court with reference to provisions specifically made in the laws has no meaning and is not enforceable.
I understand that Sh. Varghese Mathew has rightly mentioned the correct legal position in his remarks earlier in this thread. So far as I understand, the labor laws are helpful only in respect of employees or workers, etc., as defined in the various laws. While defining such words as "employee" or "worker," the officers of a higher level or middle level working in a supervisory or managerial role, etc., are left out by also raising the limit of wages and left either at the mercy of the employers or left to go through a long spell of litigation in a civil suit.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The officer of the Construction Company who started this thread for suggestions from seniors, as per the facts furnished by him, is neither a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, nor an "employee" under the provisions of The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. Section 58 of The Building & Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, entitles the "building workers" for compensation under the said Act. But the Officer, in my opinion, is not a "building worker" as defined under The Building & Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Sections 44 & 45 of this Act lay down specifically the responsibilities of the employers under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, but the same applies only to "building worker" as defined under section 2(e) of the said Act.
In addition, in my opinion, as pointed out in the above remarks, the construction site is located in Faridabad. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Delhi Labour Court is doubtful since the building construction site located in Faridabad is required to comply with the rules or Acts as applicable in Faridabad/Haryana. In my opinion, any paragraph of agreement between employer and employee regarding the jurisdiction of any court with reference to provisions specifically made in the laws has no meaning and is not enforceable.
I understand that Sh. Varghese Mathew has rightly mentioned the correct legal position in his remarks earlier in this thread. So far as I understand, the labor laws are helpful only in respect of employees or workers, etc., as defined in the various laws. While defining such words as "employee" or "worker," the officers of a higher level or middle level working in a supervisory or managerial role, etc., are left out by also raising the limit of wages and left either at the mercy of the employers or left to go through a long spell of litigation in a civil suit.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Vinit Soni,
This thread has been referred to the Legal Members of this Forum for their expert suggestions. However, prima facie, I think your advocate should have alerted you to the legal position of the issues you mentioned - where to file the case and whether you can move the Labor Court at all - even BEFORE the step presently taken. I suggest waiting for the Legal members to respond.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This thread has been referred to the Legal Members of this Forum for their expert suggestions. However, prima facie, I think your advocate should have alerted you to the legal position of the issues you mentioned - where to file the case and whether you can move the Labor Court at all - even BEFORE the step presently taken. I suggest waiting for the Legal members to respond.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.